goldisheavy

It doesn't mean that at all. What it means is the identity is not fixed, but that's very different from saying there is no identity at all. No, that's not what it is at all. Identity is relational. What something is can be only expressed in terms of what it is not. That's a critical feature of Buddhist doctrine. Things do not give meaning to themselves. Things have meaning only in context with other things. In other words, the apple is not apple because of the apple. The apple is apple because it's not a table and not a Sun and so on. So in this relational context the apple has meaning and only in that context. Nothing has self-meaning. Let's destroy the illusion of discontinuity, shall we? If each moment was completely separate and discontinuous from the next, it would imply that there was no logical connection between moments. It would then imply that causes and effects were neither causal nor effective, since for causes and effects to be effective they have to span time. In fact, that's also the argument for rebirth. Causes and effects do not stop at death. They go on. Hence rebirth.

Change is impossible without continuity. I ask you, how do you recognize when something has changed? Wrong. Continuity must imply change. Discontinuity implies eternal sameness without change. You got it completely backwards. If nothing changes, then what continues to what? Time itself has no meaning whatsoever without some recognizable sign of change. So time, which is a measure of continuity, only makes sense in the context of change.

Wrong. Here you made a mistake. Speed of change is utterly irrelevant. If anything, you can discern speed by comparing that which changes faster to that which changes slower. Without differences in speed there would be no concept of speed at all. This leads to the realization of speed as a continuum. On this continuum you have glacial speed as well as lightning fast, but ultimately even the fastest change is gradual because all change can always be subdivided into time periods. One other point. Buddha has emphasized impermanence not because it's a correct view, but because it's a view that is conducive to pacification. There is a difference. Impermanence is actually a view that leans toward nihilism. And once again I had to cut out the 2-3 relevant lines out of a huge amount of junk. Please, once again, get straight to the point next time. Don't give me a rambling introduction. It's not necessary.

The true view is roughly "neither same nor different". Viewing any two things are radically the same or radically different are both extreme views. Radical sameness demands a stable identity and radical difference also demands a stable identity. Ever heard this expression in Buddhism, "a view beyond all extremes, beyond the extremes of is, is not, both is and is not, neither is nor is not"? The four combinations of the is-ness are called the tetralemma. The orthodox view is beyond the extremes represented in the tetralemma. I'm talking about the doctrinal Buddhism now. If you think that each moment is radically different, I ask you, how do you know the difference?

Such extremes don't really exist in practice. Some philosophers' views are less profound, some are more, but I would argue no one is purely theoretical. Yes, there is. Direct knowing is delusional knowing.

Buddha has never urged a dogmatic abandonment of anything. Buddha has always asked people to examine the views critically, including the view of the self. Taking a hard stance against the view of the self is actually contrary to the spirit of Buddha Dharma.

That's funny. You're saying it as if experience comes at you with meaning attached. There is no such thing as "bare experience." And philosophers are the only people who even have a chance to understand reality correctly. All the genuine mystics have been philosophers without exception.

Who cares about giants anyway? Just look at the modern basketball players. Some of them need custom-made cars because they can't fit into a normal car. Yes there are giants. So what? Who cares? Also giants are not necessarily healthy. For example look up Andre the giant. So as I see it, there is zero spiritual significance in the size of the body, and if anything, an overly big body is a sign of a health disorder based on our current understanding (which we should not discard without a good reason). So why bring up giants? Ah, yes, because there are giants in the Bible. That's just about the only reason to bring them up, isn't it?

Interpreting impermanence as evidence for discontinuity is too extreme. It's an erroneous view that doesn't reflect the true state of affairs.

This is completely bogus. In order to regard each moment as a separate entity, you have to bracket each moment with a start middle and end. Since moments don't have start, middle and end, they are not discrete. That's all there is to it. Two sentences is all it took to put an end to all this nonsense. Why cut and paste so much junk? Just get straight to the point next time. Even in this partial quote of your post, only the last few sentences are relevant. Everything else is junk. Next time don't imagine that the volume of text is somehow influential. Get to the point right away and don't waste your or my time.

There is no need to reach out for fantasies in this way. Reality is more magical than you think and there is no point in lying to people, which is what you're essentially doing with this bullshit propaganda right now. The Abrahamic religions are a plague upon this Earth. Some Abrahamic religions are worse than others, but they are all bad when it comes to their doctrines. I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to sneak them in on this forum.

It doesn't mean that at all. The moments contextualize each other, and in that relatedness they transcend time.

This never happens. At least not for anyone on this Earth.

That's because reality is indeed continuous and not disjointed.

Keep in what?

From the Bloodstream Sermon:

No Bodhisattva left behind!

Something similar happened to me as well. When I was walking around meditating some Indian-looking guy appeared in the park, assumed a yoga posture and starting breathing in one nostril and out the other, very very loudly. It's almost like he wanted attention. I thought about talking to him, but then decided not to bother. I've never seen that guy again. So, I'm there, walking around, and all these weird one-off guys and sometimes gals come and go. My current pet theory is that when I meditate I attract strange people to me, but most of them turn out to be flakes in my opinion. One day they're there, then they're gone. It's like they're fishing for students, but when no one takes their bait, they go away. Perhaps something similar is happening to you. If you agree, then my suggestion is to just keep on trucking. Ignore those guys. Do your thing and be strong. Don't let shiny objects derail your attention.

Very nice. Part 2

I agree. Thank you for bringing this up.

I'm glad to hear it. That's what I want in the first place.

Ignorance can never become complete because if that were the case, there'd be no door left to open for wisdom. That's not a description of remote viewing. Remote viewing is simply viewing things that are conventionally considered remote, or some distance away from your current location. Nonetheless, Buddha used to teach his monks to reflect on the morbidity of the body. After many of his monks committed suicide, he changed his approach and no longer taught that technique. I seem to remember something like that being mentioned. What is or isn't morbid is relative. There is no point in cultivating the perception of morbidity when the world has plenty of honest morbidity that doesn't require cultivation in order to be perceived. The world is naturally full of foul experiences as well as delights. When we let go, is it the world that we let go? Or is it our conventional frame of mind, our conventional mindset that we let go?

It's impossible to distinguish with certainty, just like all other things. All distinctions are merely apparent.

Is it that simple?

Viewing lust is nothing compared to remotely viewing ignorant people posting on forums. That will really put you on the path of renunciation if you see it happen.